Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your Reckless Driving Case. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

McDonald v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia), which, after a bench trial, convicted her of reckless driving. The sole issue presented by the appeal was whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove a vehicle recklessly on a highway in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 and received a penalty for the acts of recklessness. The court found that the evidence was insufficient and reversed the conviction. The court held that under the facts shown by the record, the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, who had fallen asleep at the wheel after drinking alcoholic beverages, was guilty of reckless driving in violation of § 46.2-852. The conviction of defendant was reversed and remanded.

If you are facing a Reckless Driving case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 provides that, irrespective of the maximum speeds permitted by law, any person who drives a vehicle on any highway recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person shall be guilty of reckless driving. While evidence of intoxication is a factor that might bear upon proof of dangerous or reckless driving in a given case, it does not, of itself, prove reckless driving. One may be both drunk and reckless. He may be reckless though not drunk; he may even be a total abstainer, and he may be under the influence of intoxicants and yet drive carefully. The word “recklessly” as used in Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-852 imparts a disregard by the driver of a motor vehicle for the consequences of his act and an indifference to the safety of life, limb or property. The essence of the offense of reckless driving lies not in the act of operating a vehicle, but in the manner and circumstances of its operation.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of Reckless Driving in Virginia, contact our law firm for help.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Virginia Code Reckless Handling Of Firearm Lawyers 18.2-56.2

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

On appeal from a criminal conviction, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth and grants to it all reasonable inferences fairly deducible therefrom.

Reckless handling of a firearm may not be limited to a handling so gross, wanton or culpable as to show a reckless disregard of human life.

Reckless conduct proscribed in a firearm statute can be less culpable than the conduct necessary for involuntary manslaughter. However, it must be more than that necessary for ordinary negligence. Inadvertent acts of negligence without recklessness, while giving rise to civil liability, will not suffice to impose criminal liability. The culpable conduct necessary for reckless conduct falls between the criminal negligence necessary for involuntary manslaughter and ordinary negligence. As with willful conduct, reckless conduct requires an awareness that serious injury will likely result.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of a reckless handling of firearm in Virginia, contact our law firm for help.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Charles v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was convicted of participating in a criminal street gang in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-46.2 and three counts of assault and battery by a mob in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-42. He was sentenced to five years for the felony participating in a criminal street gang conviction and to a total of 24 months for the three misdemeanor assault and battery convictions. The Court of Appeals of Virginia affirmed. Defendant appealed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Virginia Simple Assault Lawyers Violation Code 18.2-42

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

The term “mob” is defined as any collection of people, assembled for the purpose and with the intention of committing an assault or a battery upon any person. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-38. In order to sustain a conviction of assault or battery by mob under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-42, the evidence must establish that the accused was a member of a mob and that the mob committed simple assault or battery. The statutory definition of a mob requires that the act of assembling be done for a specific purpose and with a specific intent – to commit an assault or a battery. The act of assembling with that specific purpose and intent distinguishes mob behavior from merely individual behavior while part of a group. However, the group need not have originally assembled with such purpose and intent in mind. Rather, it is possible that individuals who are lawfully assembled may become members of a “mob” without great deliberation. Whether a group of individuals becomes a “mob” depends upon the circumstances and no particular words or express agreements are required to effect a change in a group’s purpose or intentions.

Once an assembled group becomes a mob under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-38, every person composing the mob becomes criminally culpable even though the member may not have actively encouraged, aided, or countenanced the act of assault or battery. Thus, criminal accountability flows from being a member of the mob, regardless of whether the member aids and abets in the assault and battery.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of a simple assault in Virginia, contact our law firm for help.

Contact our law firm today to speak with a lawyer today about your Criminal Case. An attorney from our firm will do his best to help you.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kane v. Commonwealth

Facts:

In an underage drinking case in Fairfax, the Circuit Court in Virginia convicted defendant of aggravated involuntary manslaughter, pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-36.1(B). Defendant appealed from that conviction.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Underage Drinking In Virginia Lawyers Driving Influence

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

A finding of criminal negligence requires acts of commission or omission of a wanton or willful nature, showing a reckless or indifferent disregard of the rights of others, under circumstances reasonably calculated to produce injury and the offender knows, or is charged with the knowledge of, the probable results of his acts. The mere happening of an accident, coupled with evidence that the offender had been drinking and that the accident was his fault, does not prove criminal negligence as a matter of law. Nevertheless, intoxication is relevant to a determination of the degree of the defendant’s negligence: whether ordinary, gross, or wanton. In this regard, drunken driving tends to make the defendant’s dangerous conduct more dangerous. A sober but reckless driver may rely on his skill and prompt reflexes to extricate himself from any emergency created by his reckless driving. A drunken driver has dulled his perceptions, blunted his skill, and slowed his reflexes in advance. The same reckless driving is more dangerous at his hands than it would be if he were sober, and his conduct is therefore more culpable. Intoxication, therefore, is relevant as an aggravating factor, increasing with its degree, bearing upon the relative culpability of the defendant’s conduct.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of an underage drinking in Virginia, contact our law firm for help.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Kamp v. Commonwealth

Facts:

The mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the terminations. The evidence showed that the children had suffered serious neglect while under the mother’s care. In several instances, she failed to protect one child from sexual abuse, and the child had contracted a sexually transmitted disease at age five. Both children were exposed to repeated domestic violence in the home. Through years of contact with DSS, the mother’s progress toward the goals precedent to reunification with her children was sporadic at best. At the time of the termination hearing, nearly two and one-half years since the children were finally removed from her care, they had been placed with a foster family that wanted to adopt them. Both had made significant progress since removal from their mother’s home. The appellate court held that clear and convincing evidence proved that this is not the first time domestic violence, hence the termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the best interests of the children..

If you are facing a first time domestic violence in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

First Time Offense For Domestic Violence In Virginia Lawyers

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

The termination of residual parental rights is a grave, drastic and irreversible action. However, it is clearly not in the best interests of a child to spend a lengthy period of time waiting to find out when, or even if, a parent will be capable of resuming his or her responsibilities.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of a first time offense for domestic violence in Virginia, contact our law firm for help.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Claret v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia), which convicted her of assault charges, in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57. Defendant contended that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, because it failed to prove an overt act or attempt to physically harm the victim. The court reviewed the matter on rehearing en banc.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

To prove assault under either the criminal definition of assault or the assimilated tort definition, a sufficient causal nexus must exist among the elements of the offense–under the criminal definition, the perpetrator must commit the overt act with the intent to inflict bodily harm and have the present ability to inflict that harm; under the tort definition, the perpetrator must commit the overt act with the intent to place the victim in fear of bodily harm and the overt act must create reasonable fear in the victim.

If you have been charged with a criminal offense of assault in Virginia, contact our law firm for help and speak with a lawyer today.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

James Doe v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Fairfax, Virginia, of two counts of third-offense domestic assault and battery in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57.2(B), based on his battering a “family or household member” as defined in Va. Code § 16.1-228. He appealed, challenging a ruling excluding evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Domestic Assault And Battery In Virginia Lawyers Family Member Code 18.2-57.2

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-57.2 provides that any person who commits an assault and battery against a family or household member is guilty of a criminal offense as prescribed therein. It incorporates by reference the definition of “family or household member” contained in Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-228, which provides that “family or household member” means (v) any individual who has a child in common with the person, whether or not the person and that individual have been married or have resided together at any time; or (vi) any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person.

Have you been charged with a Class 2, 3, or 4 felony offense in Virginia and contemplating taking a plea and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with a Class 2, 3, or 4 felony offense in Virginia and contemplating taking a plea?

For a lot of our clients, a felony offense can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance or even their immigration status.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a a Class 2, 3, or 4 felony offense in Virginia and contemplating taking a plea. Contact our law firm for help and speak with a lawyer today.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Peterson v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant and two sub-tenants, a woman and her nine-year-old daughter, lived in the house that defendant burned. At the time of the fire, the woman and her daughter had gone out to rent a movie. After starting the fire, defendant also left. Defendant argued that he was guilty of a Class 3 felony, rather than a Class 2 felony, because the dwelling was unoccupied when he set fire to it. The trial court considered defendant’s plea at his sentencing hearing and rejected it. Defendant challenged his conviction for arson of an occupied dwelling, a Class 2 felony, under Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-77 entered by the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia).

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Virginia Felony Class 2 3 4 Plea Lawyers Arson Burning Dwelling House

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Burning a building that is not usually occupied by persons lodging therein at night, is a Class 3 felony, if it is done at a time when any person is therein, but only a Class 4 felony if it is done when no person is in such building. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-79. Similarly, burning any other building or structure at a time when no person is in such building is a Class 4 felony, instead of a Class 3 felony, if otherwise. Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-80. The phrase “temporarily unoccupied” that is used in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-77 has a different meaning.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Fernandez v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendant sought review of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Fairfax (Virginia), which convicted him on eighteen counts of possessing child pornography and one count of reproducing child pornography. Defendant contended that the trial court erred by not suppressing incriminating evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Child Porn Cases Virginia Lawyer Possession Reproducing

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

Search warrants are not directed at persons; they authorize the search of “places” and the seizure of things. Indeed, the critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific things to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Franklin v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Defendants hosted a party for their 16-year-old child at which alcoholic beverages were served. A police officer responded to a call reporting underage drinking and observed, after driving up the residence driveway, young people in the backyard with beer bottles in their hands. When the young people saw the officer, they began to flee. The officer then entered the backyard without a warrant and observed numerous empty alcohol bottles. Defendants contended that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the penalties were illegally imposed. The trial court and court of appeals disagreed.

If you are facing a criminal case in Virginia, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Penalties For Underage Drinking In Virginia Lawyers Alcohol Beverages

Holdings:

The Virginia Court made the following holding:

The Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself. When government agents conduct a search or seizure within protected areas of a dwelling without a warrant such actions are presumptively unreasonable and unlawful unless they are supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances.